Thursday, August 31, 2006

Was is the pacifist to make of cases like this, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/5217424.stm, a 16 year old girl hanged in public in Iran for promiscuity with a married man (alternately described by the State-run newspaper as 22 years old, and guilty of adultery). This type of atrocity cannot be committed alone. It takes at least a government, and almost always a measurable section of society, to commit such atrocity. How does the pacifist meet the challenge of preventing such tragedy?

One obvious solution would be to beg of 22 year old Iranian adultresses (and/or 16 year old Iranian promiscuelles) not to ever commit such offenses. That, of course, constitutes appeasement. Nonetheless, it is a potentially non-violent solution.

Another solution would be to turn back time to when important impressions were formed at a cultural/societal level that caused a shift in mores that would led to the accomodation of violence as a solution, and ensure that a different path be taken, one that ultimately leads to peaceful existence.

What effect do you suppose having executions be made public would have on American perception of capital punishment? I suppose it might either weaken support for the practice, or, as may have happened in Iran, it might coerce acceptance through fear.

I am largely pacifist and believe that humans have brains not to create better fangs and claws, but to create solutions to problems without resort to violence. I agree that advocates for war should be willing to fight. If a building is burning, and there aren't enough fire fighters, if you believe the fire should be put out, then you'd better grab a bucket. However, on both sides of the political aisle you will find personal habits that fall short of the rhetoric. Have we on the left who advocate greater welfare for the poor given away any appreciable percentage of our material wealth toward that endeavor? Do we environmentalists ride our bike to work? Do we advocates for peace sign up as human shields? Perhaps some do, and bravo to them. Others haven't the courage of their convictions. My point is not that war-cheerleaders are not morally repugnant. They are. But it's not because they don't serve. It's rather because they advocate violence. And those who carry out violence willingly are morally no better, and quite possibly worse, than those who merely advocate it. Nonetheless, it seems perfectly reasonable -- perhaps even admirable -- to champion an ideal which one inevitably cannot achieve. My ideal happens to be peace and love, and that love extends from bombed civilians to misguided rightwingers. They shouldn't be signing up to fight. Nobody should be.